Richmond finds another way to lose

CHRIS Judd faces a lengthy stint on the sidelines after match review panel chairman Mark Fraser said his chicken wing grapple on North Melbourne's Leigh Adams had the potential to ''bring the game into disrepute''.

Judd's case was sent directly to the tribunal for adjudication tonight, with the Carlton captain only the fifth player to be dealt with in this manner for an offence against an opponent since the tribunal system overhaul in 2005. The four players who preceded him - Port Adelaide's Byron Pickett, St Kilda's Steven Baker, Sydney's Barry Hall and Fremantle's Dean Solomon - were suspended for, on average, seven matches. Pickett's six-match stint for rough conduct against Adelaide's James Begley in early 2006 was the most lenient.

Fraser said he and his fellow panelists - former chief racing steward Des Gleeson and former umpire Bryan Sheehan - had considered punishing Judd under the broad rough-conduct charge but their decision not to was partly due to the severity of the incident, in which Adams' right arm was wrenched behind him as he was pinned to the ground, exacerbating a previous shoulder injury.

What have I done? Chris Judd watches from the bench. Photo: Getty Images

''We looked at it very closely. We had a discussion amongst the panel - Des, Bryan and myself - and we talked about [whether it was] rough conduct or misconduct. We decided that this would be best served under misconduct,'' Fraser told the AFL website.

Advertisement

''We thought it was unsportsmanlike in nature … and has the potential to bring the game into disrepute. So we thought it was better sending it straight to the tribunal for a verdict.''

The MRP also deemed Judd's action, which drew a match-day report, ''wasn't conduct that was covered under the table of [fixed-penalty] offences particularly well''. Its referring of the incident to the tribunal removes the opportunity for Judd to receive a 25 per cent discount for accepting any penalty imposed on him.

Judd also faces a 30 per cent loading on whatever penalty - a legacy of a three-match misconduct ban from the 2009 finals series for making ''unnecessary contact'' near the eyes of then-Brisbane Lions player Michael Rischitelli.

The medical report submitted by the Kangaroos to the MRP reportedly cited Judd's grapple as the cause of the latest dislocation to Adams' shoulder.

''Obviously the medical [report] we take into consideration where there's been any injury to the player. In this case there's been exacerbation of an injury, and he [Adams] did have to go from the ground - as everyone could see - and get treated,'' he said.

''We thought there was enough force in there for something to be done about it.''

Carlton is yet to finalise its strategy of defending Judd at the hearing. While Adams gave a positive character reference of Judd in a post-match interview on Friday night he can only be called if Carlton convinced tribunal chairman David Jones it is vital to do so.

As part of the tribunal-system revamp in 2005 the AFL changed the rules to cut the number of ''victim players'' asked to give evidence, in the belief it was ''not of assistance to a fair, credible and expeditious determination of the matter where the evidence of umpires and video replays were available''.

Such evidence was crucial in Judd being cleared of a charge of eye-gouging then-Hawthorn player Campbell Brown in 2007.

Later in that season Brown admitted he lied to the tribunal because ''I wanted him to get off, everyone wanted him to get off''.

26 comments so far

What a shame that a star such as Judd should resort to such tactics. It's not the first time as we know. What angers me the most is that on two occasions, Judd's actions might have resulted in serious injury, maybe permanent injury to the victims. There's no place for this in football. It's dirty. I hope they throw the book at him.

Commenter

Mollyduker

Location

Fryerstown, Victoria

Date and time

July 17, 2012, 9:58AM

I agree, they really have to make a strong stand on this one. I think the tribunal will have finally tired of Judd's dirty actions, after previous leniency. And if there are any Carlton fans trying to defend the indefensible, try to think how it would seem to you if someone had done the same thing to murphy while he was pinned to the ground.

Commenter

dave

Location

coburg

Date and time

July 17, 2012, 10:34AM

it seemed he saw the opportunity to further damage the opponents shoulder and he actually went for it, prime time TV too - coocey stuff - dirty tacktics indeed!

Commenter

Jimako

Date and time

July 17, 2012, 11:13AM

%9 of voters in the poll are Carlton flogs.

Commenter

James

Location

Melbourne

Date and time

July 17, 2012, 10:20AM

Wow, couldn't post that one fast enough to even re-read if it were written correctly Germs? Dumbass.

Wellingham takes his eyes off the ball and lines up Simpson. Zeibell attacks the ball (gets there first). Both get three weeks after MRP claim Wellingham's Rookie year as part of a five year good behaviour history (despite not being eligable to play in that year).

Neither look is want the AFL want but what the supporters want is some consistency and a fair system. Wellingham 6 weeks, Judd 3 weeks, Hunt 2 weeks and Zeibell cleared. Am I wrong?

Commenter

MRP a joke

Location

Carlton

Date and time

July 17, 2012, 10:24AM

Shock horror that the readers vote 5-6 weeks. Chris Judd can't sneeze without opposition supporters and snipers in the media having a go at him. Clearly he is in the wrong and will be suspended; but if he receives a similar penalty to Barry Hall, or Sharrod Wellingham then there is something majorly wrong with the system. Actually as you point out - we already know what is wrong - its finger in the air guess work. The rules, umpiring decisions and MRP decisions have become so subjective and open to interpretation that the game is bordering on unwatchable. I wonder if Carlton and Judd haters will now shut up about him getting favourable umpiring decisions. Unlikely.

Commenter

Barry

Location

Balwyn

Date and time

July 17, 2012, 11:12AM

Let me guess Balwyn, Carlton supporter? Or do you have a tenner on him for the Brownlow?If any player did the same, they'd have been finished as a player. Heck, if a bouncer did it at crown they'd be up on charges and potentially imprisoned. If anything, Judd's name has helped him in this and will continue to do so.

Commenter

kozeyekan

Date and time

July 17, 2012, 11:24AM

The obvious difference between Wellingham & Judd that all but a disappointed Carlton fan can see, is that Wellingham was already in the air when he made a split second decision to bump rather than mark. It was in play.

Judd's little effort was clearly calculated and directed to an already injured player. He was standing outside the play and deliberately stepped in to cause an injury. It ruins the game. Go and play cage fighting if thats your style. Judd's already had enough let offs for dirty play. 7 weeks should be enough time for him to see the error of his ways.

17 Jul
Most great players have their moments of rage and frustration on the field, and the AFL's fairest and best characters have cracked in the heat of battle. It seems that if you play long enough, something in footy will send you over the edge.